If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I guess you missed the first comment in the G+ thread
Canonical seems like it is really flailing. Trying everything possible to get traction. It's not surprising that they abandoned the Wayland "pledge". I think I even said this at the time, their "weight" behind projects amounts to very little.
Did anyone see the recent MWC? While people like CNET gave Ubuntu Touch their STAR OF THE SHOW, actual companies were much more interested in FFOS (for good reason but the point is that Ubuntu just doesn't carry much/any weight outside of a very small group).

As for what some have been suggesting as to Canonical not releasing the source code to this project, it would be a bad choice for them to do something like that.
After all, they didn't close off Upstart.

Also on the red hat/wayland comments. Are there any WL contributors from red hat?

I never said it did, just that Wayland is the one that is likely to get their support. Thanks for the clarification though daniels.

Something else I realized is that this might actually cause developers to target X11 for a lot longer than if it were a simple transition to Wayland. We will now have three competing standards on Linux - Wayland, Mir, and X11. You could try to target all three, or one or two, but one of them has a huge advantage from a developers point of view over the others, and ironically that is X11. Why? Because both Wayland and Mir will have legacy support for X11 applications, meaning that if someone targets X11 it should mean it should work on all three implementations. It would be the easiest option to run on all three.

So anyone cheering this as a means to killing off X11 quicker might need to step back and consider this. Regardless, fun times are ahead. In a bad way.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that people are making their software incompatible with Android - but i haven't gotten that impression at all, in any sense. - nor was i saying anything along those lines.

Android also is not built (the way Ubuntu is) around Gnu/Linux. ...and there is a big difference between Google and Canonical ~ aside from Google being highly profitable and *actually* making decent contributions to FOSS; google summer of code, linux kernel development, etc - while canonical is NOT a wildly profitable company and essentially just uses FOSS developers as free labor force.

Google also doesn't hype their FOSS community involvement and tout themselves as being the 'shepards/leaders of open-source' the way that Mark Shuttleworth and his band of morons tend to.

Anyway, i don't see ubuntu phone being successful (compared to google) and i do think upstream developers shouldn't support Canonical's efforts, nor support ubuntu-specific crap like Mir...

Actually you were saying something along those lines.
You stated that you hoped that "receive some real backlash for their exploitation of the FOSS community. Canonical is only involved with FOSS for free labor, nothing more..." when Google has been doing the exact same thing with Android and Chrome OS.
Should developers shun those platforms because they don't push their changes upstream?
In fact, remember how long it took to import the changes from the Android Linux kernel to the upstream one? Also remember how it fell back onto the community to push those changes, not Google?

If you do think that Ubuntu should be shunted for exploiting the open source community but not Android, I have something to teach you about double standards

Genuine, and I believe relevant question, that has yet to be addressed;

Can someone please explain to me how Ubuntu moving to Qt5/QML for the very front of the OS is going to affect the final outcome of a user's application experience? Could I still install my Rhythmbox and Amarok? Can I still connect with my digi-cam and phone to Digikam? Can I remove the Russian audio track from the only copy of The Magic Pudding I could find on the interwebs with Audacity?

When it comes to the end user, (I don't actually use Ubuntu, which not should matter, I'm just advocating 'ignorant' users whom could care less about the backend stuff), how will this ultimately affect me.

You stated that you hoped that "receive some real backlash for their exploitation of the FOSS community. Canonical is only involved with FOSS for free labor, nothing more..." when Google has been doing the exact same thing with Android and Chrome OS.
Should developers shun those platforms because they don't push their changes upstream?

Google are at least honest about their intentions and their approach towards open source; they don't invent technical justifications for decisions which were made long beforehand on totally different grounds.

Genuine, and I believe relevant question, that has yet to be addressed;

Can someone please explain to me how Ubuntu moving to Qt5/QML for the very front of the OS is going to affect the final outcome of a user's application experience? Could I still install my Rhythmbox and Amarok? Can I still connect with my digi-cam and phone to Digikam? Can I remove the Russian audio track from the only copy of The Magic Pudding I could find on the interwebs with Audacity?

When it comes to the end user, (I don't actually use Ubuntu, which not should matter, I'm just advocating 'ignorant' users whom could care less about the backend stuff), how will this ultimately affect me.

Amarok and Digikam are KDE, and thus qt, apps anyway. GTK apps run fine under KDE and you can set independent themes for them. Same policy with qt. You will probably have both toolkits installed, but apps from either still work, it just means Unity is written for qt with qml.

Actually you were saying something along those lines.
You stated that you hoped that "receive some real backlash for their exploitation of the FOSS community. Canonical is only involved with FOSS for free labor, nothing more..." when Google has been doing the exact same thing with Android and Chrome OS.

You may interpret what i said however you like, but that doesn't make your interpretation even close to correct.

1st. it is quite dishonest to be insinuating that Android/ChromeOS rely on the gnu/linux stack + applications @ anywhere near the level that Canonical does. that is simply false.
2nd. It is silly for you to also not see the difference of contributions to FOSS between Canonical and Google, be that via source code, GSOC (which go look at the various projects over the years students have been paid to work on - free labor, eh?) and/or $$$ through other funding ~ such as funding code-weavers to support Adobe Photoshop in Wine, Linux foundation gold member, etc, etc.
3rd. Google's use of the linux kernel for android (and everywhere else) has put linux into the mobile game big time. (sorry Canonical coming years later and 'piggy-backing' using android s/w components is not the same thing).
4th. there is also a difference in 'stated intentions', M.Shuttleworth has always presented Canonical as sheparding/leading the larger FOSS community, he litters his speech with a zillion happy-fuzzy buzzwords, which are essentially all BS / a scam. ~ unlike Mark/Canonical, Redhat was honest from the beginning (as a good example) - they have a very commercial enterprise using FOSS software, yet are heavy contributors to FOSS projects and have been for years and years. ~ Canonical is not and likely never will be either. ~ how much code does Canonical pump into the kernel? how about compilers like GCC? ...how about anything that isn't just 'self-serving'... Google does many things that benefit a wider audience, much like Redhat does...

Originally Posted by intellivision

Should developers shun those platforms because they don't push their changes upstream?

why are you asking a question which bears no relevance to anything? I never said someone should be shunned for not pushing changes upstream. There are sometimes valid reasons to not do so, for a variety of reasons.

Originally Posted by intellivision

In fact, remember how long it took to import the changes from the Android Linux kernel to the upstream one? Also remember how it fell back onto the community to push those changes, not Google?

the length of time really bears no relevance. Sure, Google did take a few years to adopt a more open approach to kernel development, but guess what?? ALL of the code that was commited, regardless of the time frame and who did it - was still code they wrote for the linux kernel and is in fact, their contribution (which is larger than anything Canonical has done or will do! and Ubuntu wouldn't even be running on a tablet, if google wasn't in the game)... Now sure, i can agree - it is problematic that it took such a long time and others did some of the commits - but it doesn't change the fact that google actually puts a lot of money, time, code, etc above and beyond anything Canonical does. (or will ever do). I think you also have to remember the context too - at that time, google has essentially been used to doing everything in-house, working with upstream linux kernel developers was something that was going to take time regardless.

Originally Posted by intellivision

If you do think that Ubuntu should be shunted for exploiting the open source community but not Android, I have something to teach you about double standards

You might want to work on that, you haven't said anything compelling. in fact, it's mostly the opposite. it seems you felt the need to drag in arguments that have nothing to do with the core issues and they were pretty weak arguments to begin with.

Google are at least honest about their intentions and their approach towards open source; they don't invent technical justifications for decisions which were made long beforehand on totally different grounds.

+1

you posted that while i was writing my reply (which also discussed 'stated intentions'). there as an article recently about Mark Shuttleworth and his intentions;

unlike Mark/Canonical, Redhat was honest from the beginning (as a good example) - they have a very commercial enterprise using FOSS software, yet are heavy contributors to FOSS projects and have been for years and years. ~ Canonical is not and likely never will be either. ~ how much code does Canonical pump into the kernel? how about compilers like GCC? ...how about anything that isn't just 'self-serving'... Google does many things that benefit a wider audience, much like Redhat does...

Also, has Red Hat ever released anything under a closed source license? I know Canonical has.